Supreme CourtFull Bench

Umedsinh P Chavda vs Union Of India & Ors

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 11 June 2020 · Citation: (2020) 6 SCC 684

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J · Hemant Gupta, J · Ajay Rastogi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 32
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 346 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 337 words

1 The petitioner who claims to be a social worker has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:

“a) To issue Writ of Mandamus Order or Direction in Nature of Mandamus, Commanding and Directing the Respondent to issue necessary orders,

prohibiting the sale and use of Coca Cola, Thumbs up, Soft Beverages and also issuing Notification uprising people at large not to drink and use it, as

the same is detrimental to the cause of health and;

b) Commanding and directing the Respondent No.1 to submit complete analytical report and scientific approval by scientist in providing license of sale

and use of liquid items like Coca Cola, Thumbs Up;â€​

2 The petitioner claims to be a “social workerâ€. The affidavit in support of the petition states that the contents of the petition are true to the

knowledge and belief of the petitioner. The petition has been filed without the petitioner having any technical knowledge on the subject. The source of

his assertions has not been substantiated. No justification or explanation is forthcoming during the submissions of Mr S P Singh, learned Senior

Counsel on why two specific brands in particular are chosen to be the target of the proceedings. The petition has been filed for extraneous reasons.

The invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is an abuse of the process.

3 Having heard Mr S P Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that invocation of the

jurisdiction under Article 32 is not a bona fide recourse to the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation. Consequently, besides dismissing the petition an

order directing the imposition of exemplary costs is necessary.

4 We accordingly dismiss the petition and impose costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000 on the petitioner. The costs imposed shall be deposited in the Registry

within one month and shall be disbursed to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. In default of compliance, the Registry shall place an

Office Report for directions.